flaw

User avatar
loomstate
Posts: 375
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2011 1:07 am

flaw

Postby loomstate » Tue Nov 06, 2012 1:34 pm

This is a post on facebook - tried to analyze it and find the flaw, what do you think?

"People say that if you don't vote you cannot complain. However, not voting indirectly affects the outcome, whereas if you vote for the winning party you directly affected the outcome. So, both decisions affect the result. Thus, if you vote for the winning party, you have no right to complain."

User avatar
sinfiery
Posts: 3308
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 2:55 am

Re: flaw

Postby sinfiery » Tue Nov 06, 2012 1:42 pm

incorrectly assumes those who directly and indirectly effected the outcome of an event have the same rights relating to that event

natashka85
Posts: 255
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 4:29 pm

Re: flaw

Postby natashka85 » Tue Nov 06, 2012 3:00 pm

It actually doesnt assume that ,it does mention that both affect the result.Wow,one of the major flaws necessary and sufficient flaw,incorrect negation,if u dont vote u cannot complain,if u vote for the winning party u cannot complain,Not V-Not C,V-Not C,does this remind u of nec and sufficient flaw?

User avatar
totgafk180
Posts: 41
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2011 1:13 am

Re: flaw

Postby totgafk180 » Tue Nov 06, 2012 3:12 pm

People say ~you vote --> ~you complain
However, ~you vote --> indirectly affects outcome
Whereas you vote & for winning party --> directly affects outcome
So, ~you vote & (you vote & for winning party) --> (indirectly | directly) affects outcome (result)
Thus, you vote & winning party --> ~right to complain

User avatar
Poo-T
Posts: 266
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 10:32 am

Re: flaw

Postby Poo-T » Tue Nov 06, 2012 6:47 pm

is there a flaw? idk it sounds pretty good to me.

obviously there are some assumptions but you know, whatever.

Idk. It seems the main assumption is "If you affect the result, then you have no right to complain." I don't think a lot of people would agree with that.

bp shinners
Posts: 3091
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 7:05 pm

Re: flaw

Postby bp shinners » Wed Nov 07, 2012 12:34 pm

loomstate wrote:This is a post on facebook - tried to analyze it and find the flaw, what do you think?

"People say that if you don't vote you cannot complain. However, not voting indirectly affects the outcome, whereas if you vote for the winning party you directly affected the outcome. So, both decisions affect the result. Thus, if you vote for the winning party, you have no right to complain."


Regardless of any other flaws, you're assuming that people aren't idiots (going from a premise that people believe something to be true to concluding that something is true). In my experience, that's a bad assumption.

User avatar
ScottRiqui
Posts: 3640
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 8:09 pm

Re: flaw

Postby ScottRiqui » Wed Nov 07, 2012 12:39 pm

The author is making the assumption that your right to complain is based on whether your action/inaction affected the outcome of the election. That's where I think the flaw is.

When people say "if you don't vote, you can't complain", I think the sentiment they're expressing is more along the lines of "if you can't be bothered to participate, then you have no right to complain.

User avatar
Poo-T
Posts: 266
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 10:32 am

Re: flaw

Postby Poo-T » Wed Nov 07, 2012 12:45 pm

ScottRiqui wrote:The author is making the assumption that your right to complain is based on whether your action/inaction affected the outcome of the election. That's where I think the flaw is.

When people say "if you don't vote, you can't complain", I think the sentiment they're expressing is more along the lines of "if you can't be bothered to participate, then you have no right to complain.

this

natashka85
Posts: 255
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 4:29 pm

Re: flaw

Postby natashka85 » Wed Nov 07, 2012 1:47 pm

GUys all u have to do is to look at the premises and conclusion,mismatch,it says either way indirectly or directly influencingaffect the result,but then the conclusion repeats the premise before and negates that premise in a wrong way,it is nec and suff flaw,also it has as mentioned before people say,but actually it doesnt conclude that it is true it negates that premise in a wrong way.

User avatar
ScottRiqui
Posts: 3640
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 8:09 pm

Re: flaw

Postby ScottRiqui » Wed Nov 07, 2012 1:51 pm

natashka85 wrote:GUys all u have to do is to look at the premises and conclusion,mismatch,it says either way indirectly or directly influencingaffect the result,but then the conclusion repeats the premise before and negates that premise in a wrong way,it is nec and suff flaw,also it has as mentioned before people say,but actually it doesnt conclude that it is true it negates that premise in a wrong way.




Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

natashka85
Posts: 255
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 4:29 pm

Re: flaw

Postby natashka85 » Wed Nov 07, 2012 2:05 pm

3 weeks before the test ,u guys don`t see the flaw,its serious,everyone up posted need to go over the flaw and prepare more seriously.

User avatar
Poo-T
Posts: 266
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 10:32 am

Re: flaw

Postby Poo-T » Wed Nov 07, 2012 2:14 pm

natashka85 wrote:3 weeks before the test ,u guys don`t see the flaw,its serious,everyone up posted need to go over the flaw and prepare more seriously.


the flaw is that he thinks anyone gives a fuck about what he says

Theopliske8711
Posts: 2213
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:21 am

Re: flaw

Postby Theopliske8711 » Wed Nov 07, 2012 2:45 pm

It's so litered with flaws that we have problem with just thinking of one, especially considering that flaws in the logic on the lsat are easier to condense and much more obviously constructed; whereas this guy is all over the place.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], jonny27, Tazewell and 12 guests